Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the previous speaker and I hope his voice will be heard by his fellow party members, so as to create a movement which, hopefully, will reach the Reform Party's top level. Who knows, maybe the leader of the official opposition will surprise us by supporting the constitutional amendment.
This amendment was the subject of numerous debates. The issue before us is deeply rooted in Quebec—I believe the minister said it six times in his speech—since the Parent report was released. Indeed, since the mid-sixties, all Quebec governments, regardless of their political colours, have tried to modernize the province's education system, and this is what we are talking about.
I am grateful to the minister for emphasizing—as he did throughout his speech—that the issue does not concern linguistic rights. Those interested in linguistic rights should read chapter 8 of Bill 101, which contains the information relating to the language of access for the majority and the minority.
The fact is that a majority of Quebeckers feel that school boards should be structured along linguistic rather than religious lines. We could not overemphasize the fact that, unfortunately, some people tried to muddle the real issue, for example by comparing the situation of francophones outside Quebec with that of anglophones in Quebec. I believe that all committee members clearly realized that, as parliamentarians, our duty was to understand the objective sought by the National Assembly.
This is somewhat of a precedent since the National Assembly, which is the only authority that can speak on behalf of Quebeckers, was unanimous on this issue. And all of us here should understand the meaning of the term “unanimous”. It means that when Pauline Marois, the member for Taillon, rose in the National Assembly to vote in favour of the motion, so did the member for Marquette. When parliamentarians vote this unanimously, you can be sure we are on solid ground.
There were, it will be recalled, consultations in Quebec City, because the very purpose of the parliamentary committee on Bill 109, which was also unanimously approved, was to look at the establishment of linguistic school boards. If we were to go a step further, and compare all the witnesses who were heard in the Quebec National Assembly with those who appeared before the joint parliamentary committee, it would be seen that there were, to all intents and purposes, no witnesses who were not heard either in Quebec City or here in Ottawa. So those people who thought there had been no consultation must think again and acknowledge that there was extensive consultation in Quebec.
Therefore, it is clear that there are two aspects to the motion now before us. First, the preamble to section 93 says that education comes under provincial jurisdiction. Everyone, of course, understands that Quebec does not want this preamble revoked since, as far back as 1953, the Tremblay Commission pointed out in no uncertain terms how essential it is for Quebec to have full and complete jurisdiction over the education sector, education being obviously linked, as we know, to identity.
Second, paragraphs (1) to (4), which are based in history, will no longer apply to the territory of Quebec. What this therefore means is that Quebec will simply no longer have a constitutional obligation, particularly with respect to the cities of Montreal and Quebec, to maintain denominational structures based on numbers—I would remind members that, when we have denominational structures in Montreal and Quebec City, there is no numerical criterion, and the right to disagree exists outside these cities—if we as parliamentarians approve the resolution before us.
Why do we think this is important? Why did a man like Claude Ryan, when he was Minister of Education and the MNA for Argenteuil, finally try to modernize the Quebec school system? Claude Ryan is a respected intellectual in Quebec society. Of course, he is no sovereignist, everyone knows that and I must say that, personally, I do not have much hope in that regard. Everyone knows that Claude Ryan is a respected and respectable individual. He even submitted the issue to the Supreme Court. He was constantly faced with this challenge, with the overbearing presence of section 93, especially subsections (1) to (4).
What this means is that when we vote today, and I think it is important to make this clear, it will be so that school boards can be organized along linguistic lines.
I insisted strongly in the joint committee on what this means for Montreal. We all know that Montreal is in a very particular situation. Montreal is where immigrants go; 80% of the immigrants that come to Quebec settle in Montreal. Every year Montreal welcomes close to 35,000 immigrants, or 15% of Canada's total immigration. Close to 225,000 immigrants come to Canada each year. Quebec has traditionally been open to immigrants, a tradition that is based of course on a low birth rate, but there is also a fundamental belief—and this is what the Bloc has been saying since it arrived in this House—that immigration is a force that contributes to the renewal of a society.
About 80% of immigrants settle in Montreal. For both historical and contemporary reasons, the majority of these immigrants enrol their children in English and Protestant schools. What is good about the amendment on which we will be voting is that French schools will truly become public schools, especially in Montreal. This is an objective that must be clearly understood.
Again this will change nothing as far as admission requirements for the anglophone minority are concerned. Bill 101 provide for some very clear rules on which we did not always agree. In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling requiring the Quebec legislator—and I am sure the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs will remember this—to replace the Quebec clause with the Canada clause. Recognizing this legal obligation, the Quebec legislator agreed to amend Bill 101, even though the National Assembly was not enthusiastic about it.
So today it is the Canada clause that applies in Quebec. This means that children whose parents received their primary education in English in Canada can enrol their children in English schools in Quebec.
It is very important to understand why this amendment we will be adopting, I hope, will help not only to modernize Quebec schools but also to strike a better balance in the greater Montreal area.
One of the arguments that was repeated again and again in our debate, but to which no one could reply adequately, concerned the principle under which the legislator could guarantee constitutional rights to two religious denominations. Why should Catholics and Protestants, in 1997-98 and in the year 2000, benefit from a form of favouritism? Both the Canadian and the Quebec charter mention the freedom to worship. In a law-abiding society with charters that are constitutional or quasi-constitutional obligations requiring Quebec to guarantee certain rights, one must ask under what principle Catholics and Protestants should be treated with favouritism.
For example, some witnesses reminded us that there were close to 80,000 Muslims in Montreal, and that they are required to enrol their children in a Catholic or a Protestant school, which is contrary to their religious beliefs and I think this is wrong.
It must, of course, also be kept in mind—and it is important that this point be made perfectly clear—that what we are talking about is taking religion out of administrative structures, out of the school boards. It is a good thing to debate the place of religion in the schools and I have some very definite ideas on the subject, but this Parliament is not the one to deal with that.
The Minister of Education, Mrs. Marois, a most extraordinary woman, has mandated a task force headed by Professor Proulx to report to the National Assembly on the place of religion in Quebec in the year 2000. When that report is tabled there will be public hearings, the holding of which is a tradition in Quebec, and the stakeholders will have an opportunity to be heard. At that time, there will be a debate within Quebec society on the place people want religion to have.
What we are speaking of is the end of denominational school boards. We are very optimistic on all sides that the amendment on which we will be voting in a couple of hours will be passed with a strong majority.
The next stage will be that, next year, parents such as those with children in Sainte-Jeanne-d'Arc school in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, will be given the opportunity at the beginning of the school year to choose between religion and ethics, and that will remain unchanged. Where the place of religion in the schools is concerned, parents will fully retain their right to demand a Catholic education for their children. This is a right which is, as we know, also given in section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Rights, which has quasi-constitutional value. In due course, the issue will be debated in the National Assembly.
We have also received all possible representations by eminent constitutional experts. As you know, constitutionalists have done roaring business of late in Canada. They came to us with the opinion that the vehicle was appropriate, for there had been some doubt on this. I know that the official opposition had been assailed by doubts at a certain point, but no constitutional expert could be found to state that section 43 was not the right vehicle.
We know that the 1982 Constitution is complex, hair-splitting even, concerning amendment formulas, since there are five possibilities. We have gone from one extreme to the other, because there was no amending formula for over 100 years. Canada was one of the few countries that had a written Constitution but no amending formula. And now we have a complex and convoluted amending formula offering five options, but, in this case, I think we are making no mistake. We made no mistake as members of Parliament or as members of the committee in stating that, following the representations made before us, the amending formula was the right one.
I also want to stress the fact that a debate was held in Quebec society and that there is a coalition representing some two million people. That is not insignificant in a democracy. There are not too many issues in which a group may come before a committee and say “I am speaking on behalf of 43 organizations”, including school administrations, unions, the CEQ and parents' committees. All of them share the same vision for things and want us to pass the amendment before us. These people are speaking for their individual organizations, and together represent two million people.
That is something pretty important and should move all those members who doubt a debate was held and think that the amendment has garnered little support in Quebec society. I hope they will be convinced, because there is obviously a lot of public reaction on this issue in Quebec.
The other thing that must be taken into consideration is the anglophone community. It represents first of all Quebec's national minority and that will be the case in a sovereign Quebec. I am among those in my party who think that the constitution of Quebec must make more provision for the rights of the anglophone community than was made in 1995.
The minister was very eloquent and I was really pleased when he made the following statement before the parliamentary committee. Of course, political reality will prevail, but the minister was right when he said very eloquently that, from kindergarten to university, the speaking community has access to an integrated school system and control over its structures and institutions.
It comes as no surprise—and it must be pointed out—that, generally speaking, the English speaking community strongly supports the amendment, for two reasons. First, because it provides increased access for that community and, from a management perspective, it means more control than the English speaking community currently has. This is very important. Moreover, it will put an end to the rivalry between the anglophones enrolled in Protestant schools and those enrolled in Catholic schools. It will allow them to consolidate their network and, of course, the teaching resources involved.
What did Mrs. Chambers tell us? In case you do not know her, Mrs. Chambers is the sister of philosopher Charles Taylor. In 1992, the Quebec government approached Mrs. Chambers and asked her to head a working group on access to the school system for anglophones. Something stands out very clearly when you read the Chambers report. The report says that Quebec's school system is not integrated, that there are a number of English language schools, but that the coherence the amendment will provide if it is passed is lacking at present. The Chambers report also asks for the so-called universal clause, but this is a different issue which is outside the scope of this debate.
So, there was a debate on this issue, which has deep roots in Quebec. Senator Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, a woman who speaks her mind, as members of the parliamentary committee noted—some parliamentarians, though not I, even compared her to Tatie Danielle—told us that the issue of linguistic school boards had already been raised in the early sixties. She reminded us about the Pagé report and the unified school boards, which are related to the issue before us today.
If there are people in this House, particularly Reformers or members who were not here during the last Parliament, who think the issue was not debated in Quebec, they are mistaken, in my opinion. The amendment was adopted unanimously, which is somethingquite rare in politics.
We also have to act quickly, since the measure will have a concrete impact on the Quebec school system. While there were 158 school boards before, there will now only be 75, which means that these school boards' boundaries will have to be redefined. The change also involves a different registration process and the redistribution of buildings between school boards. Therefore, it is important to act as quickly as possible, so that by July of next year the registration process and organizational restructuring can have been completed and that by next September linguistic school boards can be in place.
I thank all members of the House, beginning with the minister, for their real co-operation. I do hope the same spirit of co-operation will prevail when dealing with other issues.
